Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

```Jason,

An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of
only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing
what when? How are you measuring it to know it's true?```
```
And again the important point to understand is that you MUST disregard SR
relative velocity effects which are illusory and non-permanent and vanish
when the relative velocities cease when they meet again. SR effects are not
'real' in the sense of being absolute. They are transient and relative and
equal and opposite for both observers. Both see the other's time slow but
that is just measurements, their time is not actually slowing in any
absolute permanent sense. By that I mean they are illusions of measurement
that exist only during relative motion. So they are not relevant when
trying to analyze what is happening in the present moment.

GR acceleration affects on the other hand are real and absolute and
experienced the same by both observers as the slowing of only the
accelerating twin's clock relative to the non-accelerating twin's clock.

I think when temporary SR effects are eliminated this problem is resolved

Edgar

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present
>> moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse
>> together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times.
>>
>> If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different
>> clock times we could do none of those things because we would be in
>> different moments of existence. We wouldn't even inhabit the same reality.
>>
>> Obviously that's not a function of being in the same clock time, because
>> it happens when we are in different clock times as well....
>>
>>
> I think it does lead to a problem.  Pam and Sam start at the same time,
> they are both zero and at Earth. They kiss each other good bye and Pam goes
> off into space. The present moment advances and both Pam and Sam experience
> something, they are now slightly older and both doing and experiencing
> something at this time.
>
> A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both
> experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them
> experiences one moment after the other. Now, eventually, the event happens
> where Pam gets to her destination, Pam is now 3.
>
> You agreed in an earlier e-mail that Sam is definitely doing something in
> this common present P-time when Pam arrives.
>
> Then a little time later, both are slightly older, and both are
> experiencing something. Then Sam turns 2 years old. A little time later,
> they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and
> so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after
> the other.
>
> Finally, Pam arrives back on Earth, Sam is 10 and Pam is 6. They shake
> hands and hug.
>
> Notice though that from one P-time to the next, and so on, continuously,
> in one P-time Pam was at her destination, and Sam was definitely doing
> something, and he was definitely less than 2 years old, because in a later
> P-time Sam had his 2nd birthday at the same time Pam was already on her way
> back to Earth.
>
> Yet, in an equally valid perspective (according to relativity) Sam's 2nd
> birthday happens before Pam reaches her destination. So if there is a
> single P-time, how can the event, Sam's 2nd birthday, happen when Pam is on
> her way back AND happen before Pam reaches her destination.  If every
> P-time is ordered and sequential, this simply isn't possible.  You have to
> accept that there is more than one consistent way to order the succession
> of present moments, which means there is no common present moment everyone
> shares.
>
> You are right that without "some principle X" we wouldn't inhabit the same
> reality, but relativity shows that "some principle X" is not, and cannot be
> a global, shared, agreed upon succession of present moments.  The "some
> principle X" is instead, a four-dimensional existence, space-time, and
> consistent presents are just "slices" through this space time. If you
> envision it in this way, you can perfectly account for all the consistent
> views and orderings either Sam, Pam, or Bob might have about which events
> happen when, and where, and in what order.
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jason,
>>>>
>>>> I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that?
>>>> It's consistent with SR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer
>>> an answer to this problem which exists in SR.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared
>>>> present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong
>>>> with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let
>>>> you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the
>>>> fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present
>>>> moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock
>>>> that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not
>>>> but
>>>> having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and
>>>> by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our
>>>> clocks are the same or not.
>>>>
>>>> There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical,
>>>> and I've given the logical reasoning...
>>>>
>>>
>>> What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity
>>> does not or cannot?
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Liz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it
>>>>> what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer
>>>>> without a defined reference frame).
>>>>>
>>>>> However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the
>>>>> exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something
>>>>> celebrating
>>>>> his fifth birthday or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I
>>>>> think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some
>>>>> mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If
>>>>> it
>>>>> does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liz,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I answered Jason directly. See that post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By not answering, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common
>>>>>>>> present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense.
>>>>>>>> Again
>>>>>>>> you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From
>>>>>>> what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or
>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>> say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible -
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying
>>>>>>> that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality -
>>>>>>> should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high
>>>>>>> energy
>>>>>>> cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested
>>>>>>> experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a
>>>>>>> mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet
>>>>>>> seen,
>>>>>>> before it can really be called a theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some
>>>>>>> reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and
>>>>>>> does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's
>>>>>>> "obvious",
>>>>>>> and "no one understands you" isn't enough (well, not unless you're a
>>>>>>> teenager, at least.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for
>>>>>>> any number of approaches that might make this understandable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email